Tag: victimless crime

As an American, I’m proud that there are no religions banned in the US. Other countries do not hold the same respect for freedom as Americans. In Singapore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, and in China, Falun Gong and Xiantianism are banned.

It only takes banning one religion to destroy freedom of religion. As soon as one religion is banned, two lists are created: the banned religion list, and by default, all the religions not on the banned list in turn become allowed religions.

The act of adding just one religion to a banned list tuned over authority of choosing a religion from the individual to the state. Even those who would never consider becoming a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Falun Gong had their freedom of religion taken away, because the right to a free choice was taken away.

This is not to say that America fully supports freedom. There are several lists of non-violent acts banned in America which in turn have created several lists of state approved activities. Marijuana, Smoking Ads on TV, and Gay Marriage are on separate banned lists in the US.

Alcohol, tobacco, betel nut, and caffeine product are the state approved lists of recreation drugs. Marijuana is on the controlled substance list along with heroin, ecstasy, LSD and…i’ts a long list.

Smoking Ads are the only product banned from TV in the US; alcohol ads are allowed as long as the alcohol isn’t consumed. Everything else falls into on the approved list of advertisements created by the FCC.

Gay marriage is on the banned list along with polygamy, and incestuous marriage. Proponents of gay marriage would like to see it moved from the banned list to the allowed list which includes heterosexuals.

Rather that argue over what belongs on the banned or allowed list, we should just do away with the lists. Take away government’s power to approve what we do with our bodies, our minds, and how we choose to freely associate with one another.

The only list that’s really needed is one for government’s role. Approved activitiees for government should only include protecting citizens from violent acts; everything else should go on the list of banned government activities.

As an American, I’m proud that there are no religions banned in the US. Other countries do not hold the same respect for freedom as Americans. In Singapore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, and in China, Falun Gong and Xiantianism are banned.

It only takes banning one religion to destroy freedom of religion. As soon as one religion is banned, two lists are created: the banned religion list, and by default, all the religions not on the banned list in turn become allowed religions.

The act of adding just one religion to a banned list tuned over authority of choosing a religion from the individual to the state. Even those who would never consider becoming a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Falun Gong had their freedom of religion taken away, because the right to a free choice was taken away.

This is not to say that America fully supports freedom. There are several lists of non-violent acts banned in America which in turn have created several lists of state approved activities. Marijuana, Smoking Ads on TV, and Gay Marriage are on separate banned lists in the US.

Alcohol, tobacco, betel nut, and caffeine product are the state approved lists of recreation drugs. Marijuana is on the controlled substance list along with heroin, ecstasy, LSD and…i’ts a long list.

Smoking Ads are the only product banned from TV in the US; alcohol ads are allowed as long as the alcohol isn’t consumed. Everything else falls into on the approved list of advertisements created by the FCC.

Gay marriage is on the banned list along with polygamy, and incestuous marriage. Proponents of gay marriage would like to see it moved from the banned list to the allowed list which includes heterosexuals.

Rather that argue over what belongs on the banned or allowed list, we should just do away with the lists. Take away government’s power to approve what we do with our bodies, our minds, and how we choose to freely associate with one another.

The only list that’s really needed is one for government’s role. Approved activitiees for government should only include protecting citizens from violent acts; everything else should go on the list of banned government activities.

This article caught my attention because it good example why not everyone is a fan of government. Several examples show common traits of bad government: discrimination, encroachment on personal freedom, behavior modification, hypocrisy, and the difficulty of getting rid of laws.

A law banning women from wearing trousers in Paris may finally be lifted more than two centuries after first being enforced.

Discriminates against women, check.

The curious rule was first introduced in late 1799 by Paris’ police chief, and stipulated than any Parisienne wishing to “dress like a man” must seek special permission from the city’s main police station.

There are those who will say it was a law for the times, and since we don’t know what things were like back then, we shouldn’t judge. It’s an encroachment on personal freedom regardless of the century. They would not have passed the law if there weren’t some women wearing trousers at the time.

But a group of ten French MPs has now submitted a draft bill to parliament to remove the law, which has survived repeated attempts to repeal it.

In 1892, it was slightly relaxed thanks to an amendment which said trousers were permitted “as long as the woman is holding the reins of a horse.”

Then in 1909, the decree was further watered down when an extra clause was added to allow women in trousers on condition they were “on a bicycle or holding it by the handlebars.”

Spell out when its appropriate to wear trousers–behavior modification, check.

In 1969, amid a global movement towards gender equality, the Paris council asked the city’s police chief to bin the decree. His response was: “It is unwise to change texts which foreseen or unforeseen variations in fashion can return to the fore.”

Difficult to get rid of a bad law once it’s on the books, check.

Given that trousers are compulsory for Parisian policewomen, they are, in theory, all breaking the law.

I’m sure no policewomen in Paris has been charged with violating this law. Here is government hypocrisy of not following laws they are supposed to enforce.

Last by not least is the failure to learn from history. France is considering banning the burqa. While France is trying to shed one discriminatory encroachment on personal freedom, it’s trying to add an almost identical one.

Compare the trouser law in France to laws in the US. Replace the word “trouser” with any of the following: motorcycle helmet, recreational drug, gun, seatbelt, or pornography. US laws have the same underlying dynamics and flaws.

Until the US government follows its own rules and removes discriminatory laws which invade personal liberty and seek to modify behavior, there is no reason to cheer for the government.